Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Afghanistan and U.S. Sign Bilateral Security Agreement

A day after the new Afghan
government took office, Afghanistan and the United States signed a long-awaited
Bilateral Security Agreement (B.S.A.), allowing nearly 10,000 American troops
to remain in the country beyond the 31 December drawdown of U.S. combat forces.
The force that will remain in Afghanistan will train and support local security
forces, and a contingent of U.S. Special Operations forces will conduct
counterterrorism missions in the country. Some 2,000 NATO troops will also join
the Americans in their new mission.

Hanif Atmar, the new
Afghan national security advisor, who signed the pact on behalf of his country,
called it a “historic agreement,” and said it had the endorsement of Loya Jirga,
the grand assembly of Afghan elders, who met and approved the pact in December.

“The people of Afghanistan
placed a great steak in our enduring partnership,” said Atmar.

U.S. Ambassador James
Cunningham signed for the United States. Witnessing the signing ceremonies at
the presidential palace in Kabul were the new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and
Chief Executive (Prime Minister) Abdullah Abdullah.

In Washington, President
Barack Obama praised the pact.

“The B.S.A. reflects our
continued commitment to support the new Afghan Unity Government, and we look
forward to working with this new government to cement an enduring partnership
that strengthen Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity, and prosperity, and that
contributes to our shared goal of defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist
affiliates,” the president said in a statement released by the White House.Photo credit: The B.S.A. signing
ceremony at Arg, the Presidential Palace. Hanif
Atmar, the new Afghan national security advisor (r.), and U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham signed the B.S.A. on behalf of their respective countries. Kabul, 30 September 2014 (NYT)

Afghan security forces needed continued training and support of the U.S. and NATO if they were to mount a credible defense against the Taliban, who were expected to start their offensive after U.S. combat troop drawdown. The Afghans saw the experience in Iraq and the collapse of the Iraqi army in the wake of U.S. complete withdrawal in 2011. Ghani and Abullah had a choice: face the Taliban with reliance on Afghan army, or continue receiving U.S. and NATO support. The public, in many opinion polls and, more importantly, in the presidential election supported the latter choice. It was a logical and necessary choice for the new leadership of the country.

While this is tehnically true within he current context, let's just hope the US doesn't later use their permanent presence and bases as a future means to keep perpetual control of Afghan foreign policy, and so long after its needs for logistical and transfer of military expertise, Washington's stated goal for pushing so hard for such continued presence, and coerce it into becoming yet another geopolitical puppet for its eastern asian influence... Many Afghans also believe the US has no place on its soil after so many reported and certified abuses on its civilian population ever since they stepped foot on their country more than a decade ago, tearing dozens of families via unwarranted drone strikes on weddings because of faulty intel, brutal and unrestricted night raids that systematically have their toll on Afghan villagers, torture and kidnapping cases perpetrated by special forces etc... the list goes on. I wonder how Afghans will perceive a newly gained total immunity from prosecution towards every upcoming abuse of US personel on the ground. Likewise, a rapidly growing number of Japanese regret the permanent establishment of US military nases on its soil since 1945 and its ongoing existence because of a never-ending "Security requirement" that the JDF has every ability to fulfill on itself , a course taken by their current president. Let's just hope we can believe every altruistic word coming out of Obama's mouth and have complete faith in America's selfless and passionate desire tp throw billions for helping mankind wherever they establish military presence. Somehow, considering their record, I have pain doing that. But let's be optimistic and see them pack and go if the Afghan army is ever considered a valid defense force.

Well too bad the poor Afghans have yet again to choose between the lesser of two evils, that is continued and unaccountable foreign military occupation force brutalizing and killing them every now and then on the one hand, and backwards head-chopping extremists on the other. Specially considering they owe the very existence of these powerful groups to the training, arming and funding they received in the 80s from a renowned American intelligence agency in the face of the "Red Menace." Time will tell how this exotic US/NATO/Afghan love affair will evolve I guess ! So far, it has proved to be quite a toxic one for the Afghan party...

Having seen how directly responsible the US itself has been in creating Al-Qaida in Afghanistan , giving Saddam the means to achieve his coup in Iraq, obtain his WMDs against Iran and then de-facto contribute to the establishment of Al-Qaida bases in the country after illegally invading , bombing, destroying , removing their former minion from power and occupying the country, I have all the difficulties in the world in admitting they could now suddently turn into the solution rather than the problem to either ruined countries. Their carefully balanced handling of both the ISIS case and the Taliban threat is a reminder of their vicious opportunism, rivaled only by Iranian calculations and manipulative acts in the Iraqi case.

Agha-ye Dariush,the state of Iran in those days was a damn sight better than it is in today.Maybe you have been living in good old London town far to long to realize this? Please let me invite you to Iran to share in the joy of all the beautiful handiwork the Akhoond regime has done for the past 35 years. Lets start with woman's rights then trickle down to workers rights,and you have the mess the regime has created with the environment and the economy. The list can go on and on,but I don't have all day long to write it. Best regards.

Sloganeering is cheap, it would not cost any lives. Running a country is not, mistakes could destroy lives and the country itself. The Afghans had the choice of going to war with the Taliban on their own, with the risk of Taliban advancing and creating an Islamic State again, or they could receive the U.S./NATO support, giving their own army a better chance to win against the Talibs. Ghani and Abdullah, representing both sides of the ethnic divide, and together representing nearly 90% of the popular votes in the presidential election, chose to stay with the Americans, and for the good of their own country. That was a logical choice by people who must run and save a country. All anti-imperialist slogans in the world cannot negate that reality.

Nor can all the cheap pseudo-pragmatic western-friendly sloganeering in the world hide the undeniable, stone cold reality that is that neither the Afghan or the Iraqi people would have found themselves in that situation in the first place would the pyromaniac firefighting "saviors" refrain from messing with their respective countries the way they did. Claim whatever pragmatism you want, it won't erase that.

Of course when you're out to put out a massive fire, you don't care who started it and would even accept help from the initial perpetrators would the latter have credible means to do so and offer it back, I can understand and accept that, rest assured, it wasn't my point. Indeed, the "logical" step now would be to avoid being suicidal and maximize chances of survival, there is no questioning that, now that the mess has started and spread so dramatically, it's called an open Pandora's box and the catastrophic rise of global terror since the very start of Bush's war on terror that reached Baghdad's doorstep at year 2, rings any bell ? I simply shared my sincere fears about the consequences of long-term opportunistic US strategy towards Afghan sovereignty starting by a extended presence today and ending tomorrow with a Japan-style everlasting lever on the country's internal politics and decision making no matter the democratically elected government in place. If you don't like what I said then please address the many points I took the care to bring up about US actions since the 80s to their current abuses like unwarranted and illegal operations costing the very lives you care so much almost every day and provoking repeated surges in Taliban recruitment efforts since 2001.

Thus I stand by my position and refuse to blindly swallow everything that the White House's PR teams try to sell out to the world every time they come to the stage and pose as the latest solution to mankind's troubles they often started themselves through varying degrees of responsibility. THEY do unoriginal "sloganeering" by carefully weighing their degree of gradual support depending on how much internal events unravel in their favor, not me, as Paul himself remarkably reminded readers of this blog with an article of his own a few days ago about their support for besieged Kurds.

Indeed, having a short and systematically selective memory doesn't cost lives either, Mr Uskowi. The "people running and saving the country" also have their huge share of responsibility in the rise of Islamist militancy through massive corruption and misuse of international support funds, including but not exclusive to creating luxurious, super high-tech residencies overlooking terror-filled slums instead of making sure the nascent Afghan army and security force learns to stand on its own feet.

Such US/NATO support for potent local security forces was exactly what the USSR almost achieved during their own draw-down of forces at the end of their engagement in the country, the US then did everything in its power to persuade President Yeltsin in pulling all support altogether from them and most crucially oil products, in order to break the remnants of pro-Republic forces despite some very successful gains against repeated Mujaheddin assaults, so please don't come lecturing us armchair deciders about the need to follow the exact same route now that it would be in their favor.

I can't believe it, the US's responsibility in those nations is facts and documented history, acknowledged by many former US diplomats all the way to hawkish Hilary Clinton herself let alone the rest of the world, and you still dismiss it as "slogans" ? This is history, not ideology, time to put some brakes on some obvious pro-US bias !

This post was about here and now: The Afghan government facing a choice in the fight against the Taliban. I was saying that it made the right choice, of inviting U.S. and NATO to support its military in the fight. But it seems you are more interested to discuss the history of Afghanistan and Western colonialism in general. Nothing wrong with that, but that was not the subject of this particular post. What do you then think of the choice made by Ghani/Abdullah? Do you want to see the U.S. and NATO leave Afghanistan now, and are you ready to say that you prefer they would not support Afghan army in its fight against the Taliban?

I addressed that part in all my posts and made clear of my position about that by saying that they had no choice at present other than to accept all the help they could get considering their dire condition, I couldn't be clearer in my words sir ! But, while I fully acknowledge that, as well as the necessity of performing airstrikes with maximum prejudice against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syira while I obviously don't condone such interventionism in general, I cannot stick on the present alone in some analytic vacuum and can't help thinking on the short to mid-term ramifications of present events, basing myself on known occurrences of history hence the Japanese example, for what is was worth. But that's only me, of course.

That is why you also blog about Hong-Kong and Ukraine, both countries of course being directly related to Iran's ongoing political and military development and the greater middle-east, making a mention of America's of Europe's intentions towards Iran's bordering states much less relevant I concur. A blog where regular, if not systematic and lengthy debates occur on the perceived implications and root causes of present policies and additional thinking on events and stakes surrounding publicly disclosed objectives by world leaders, the very purpose of political discussion and the very strength of your blog for which I am thankful. Removing both the past and the future from political discussions amputates it by a large margin and would remove a critical layer of welcome human analysis from the site, and would forbid history-related articles sometimes posted both my Mark and Paul, and I'd personally find it to be a big waste, including your own valuable comments Mr. Uskowi.

Please read my remark again: I said the focus of the blog is on Iran and increasingly regional developments. I did not say we do not discuss any other issues such as Hong Kong or Ukraine, we do, especially if there are some relations with our main subject.

I did not say either that any discussion about past or future cannot take place, they do. I said our focus is on current developments, not history. There are many great historical blogs, and I read them all the time, we are not one of them.

So let's put this discussion in perspective: It started with the choice of Ghani and Abdullah of inviting the U.S. and NATO to keep some 12,000 troops in Afghanistan beyond the 31 December troop drawdowns. Some commentators wanted to focus their discussion on historical events, without relating those history "lessons" to the subject of the post. As valuable as those discussions might be, we need to stay away from generalities all the time and say specific things on specific events, otherwise it becomes like sloganeering.

Fair enough, then my point has been made time and again through the 3 posts I personnally wrote on this particular thread. I am simply surprised to witness what I see as a bit hostile and hasty reaction to my sole desire of going beyond current events and produce an hypothesis for today's midterm implications. In turn, I'd ask : What is the relevency of only stating the obvious and sticking to the simplest and most undeniable dimension related to pressing facts if the whole discussion is devoid of context and any attempt to put an event such as this one and its rich strategic ramifications dismissed as cheap sloganeering, which is tehnically wrong and rude ? I use to read this blog and others every day as well, and this is not what I have seen throughout its publications and the associated comments. Indeed the very intellectual added-value of this site that I respect emnanates in my eyes from broader discussions around specific events in a strategically troubled region, what you call "generalities". I'd say 2/3 of your blog is comprised of such generalities if I use your wording, and I disagree. I mean what is he value of this question ? Tell me who short of an extremist or Pro-Taliban would decently state that Afghanistan should be left on its own with obviously under-trained and armed forces, and plunge into Talibanic madness as soon as foreign forces leave ? If put soleley that way, stakes are quite easy to address and the answer is let's keep the big guns and grunts. The problem is that in my opinion it sn't what is at stake through the establishment of permanent US and/or Nato bases in such sensitive part of the globe to begin with. I do not see the point is sticking to an obvious imbalance of power forcing Afghan leaders' hands alone. Such Security Agreement is meaningless if observed through the sole prism of leadership pragmatism. Plus, Mark and specially Paul regularly post completely historical articles and try to relate them to current events and often trigger heated debates in the process, with your participation included, and I doubt you find any lf them inconsistent with the spirit of this site, so I'm a little confused about the treatment reserved to my appraoh. I don't recall belittling your points so easily.

Iran is not a free and independent country. Because the people are told that only velayat-e-faqi can be free to be both judge and jury of the land. Iranian people are nothing but sheeple in velayat-e-faqi's and his followers eyes.

I assure you, Iran today is by far more independent, strong and respected than you might anticipate... its influence starts on the eastern borders of Afghanistan and reaches out to the shores of Lebanon... so much influence and soft/hard power were last seen in the antics from Iran. Accept, yourself to be a little biased towards Iran and its system of governance for reasons that concernes only you and non other, and I assure you further, regardless of whoever should rule and govern Iran, you shall have names and curses for them to insult them.

Azari by fortune and Iranian by grace of God.Dariush Turnham green London

Lets get this straight,Akhoondi regime is not Iran,kapish? Because they have been the most anti-Iranian entity since arab invasion of Iran. I assure you that all that so-called influence by a bunch of Aghab Oftoddeh means absolutly nothing when you have a ruined economy,a destroyed enviroment,society lead to rack and ruin through mass unemployment,drug abuse and certified mass prostitution (seqhe). Don't forget that all that so-called influence is taking bread off the Iranian table and giving it straight to the likes of Hezbollah,Hamas and Assad's regime,with the net result of zero for the Iranian people.And besides this regime has been cursed since the day of its inception.God forbid,it doesn't need me to curse them,does it?

Exactly, these 'knockers' & ingrates here, of the U.S. extensive efforts of trying to help gain Peace in the region, just don't see that the U.S. are making sacrifices. Or care if. And God they (US) wish they could go home instead of cleaning up your "messes' in Middle East and apparent, constant inability to get along, alongside each other. See the light. You should be extremely grateful. But you don't have the capability of that for some reason. When you should. I don't understand that.

Oh yes, sacrifices you say. You probably mean the few thousand SOLDIERS they lost as opposed to literally a million Iraqis, tens of thousands of Afghans, plus thousands of Pakistanis (via completely illegal drone strikes anywhere, whenever they please), all of them mostly CIVILIANS ? I really hope you were being cynical and/or ironical here, for the sake of your own intellectual credibility. I mean, cleaning up "their" messes, are you serious ? Can you enlighten us poor ignorant readers about the initial perpetrators that brought Al-Qaeda to the very heart of Baghdad, Iraq, a country where such existence was absolutely zero before some uninvited party came, ripped everything apart from infrastructure to state fabric, brought an estimated 1 million death in the country during its near-decade long occupation, and that had created Al-Qaeda itself in the first place in Afghanistan, an organization that has now spread its sway like never before in history ? See the light. The world should be extremely grateful for America's greatness. Indeed, look at so much good, peace, modernity and stability it has brought to the whole Middle-East ever since its troopers marched on one of its capital cities back in 2003. But you don't have the capability of that for some reason. When you should. I don't understand that.

This Site

Uskowi on Iran offers factual reporting and editorial on the current situation in Iran, with special emphasis on political and military developments, nuclear program, foreign policy and law enforcement. We thank you for your visit and encourage you to post your comments. You can contact us by email: nuskowi |at| gmail.com.